P
Pentadbir Tanah, Seberang Perai Utara
Person 1 case
Pentadbir Tanah, Seberang Perai Utara appeared as a party in the following Malaysia court case:
pa-24ncvc-885-07-2025
KEPALA BATAS BIHUN SDN BHD v 1. ) BANK KERJASAMA RAKYAT MALAYSIA BERHAD 2. ) PENTADBIR TANAH, SEBERANG PERAI UTARA
MYHC 27 October 2025
See the full case for complete details including judgment text, legal issues, and counsel involved.
About Pentadbir Tanah, Seberang Perai Utara
Pentadbir Tanah, Seberang Perai Utara appears as a party in 1 judgment in the MY Case Law database, spanning October 2025 to October 2025. Pentadbir Tanah, Seberang Perai Utara appeared as respondent in 1 case. Cases span the High Court (1).
How many court cases involve Pentadbir Tanah, Seberang Perai Utara?
Pentadbir Tanah, Seberang Perai Utara appears in 1 published judgment from October 2025 to October 2025. Most commonly as respondent (1 cases).
Practice Areas
1. The lodgement of a private caveat over land belonging to another individual or entity serves the legitimate purpose of protecting the interests of the caveator. However, such a mechanism must not be abused. Where a caveat is shown to be unjustified, the caveatee is entitled under the law to seek its removal, and may also pursue damages against the caveator for any loss suffered. 1 2. The present application, filed via Originating Summons in Enclosure 1, illustrates the judicial responsibility that arises when a party asserts what it believes to be a legitimate interest warranting the lodgement of a private caveat, and that assertion is subsequently challenged by the registered proprietor. In this instance, the Plaintiff, as the caveatee and registered proprietor, seeks the removal of private caveats lodged by the First Defendant over nine separate parcels of land. The Second Defendant is named in these proceedings in its statutory capacity under the National Land Code. 1 The Fundamental Issue 1 3. The central issue for determination in this Originating Summons is whether the private caveats lodged by the First Defendant ought to be removed. This question is to be considered in accordance with the statutory framework under the National Land Code, as well as the applicable legal principles developed through a consistent line of judicial authorities which this Court is bound to follow and apply. 1